DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 5/30/2024 and remarks filed on 1/7/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 2-9, 16-17, and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 10-15, 18, and 19 are examined herein.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election of Species II, directed toward a modular furniture frame unit comprising a storage component positioned adjacent to a bed as represented by claims 10-15, 18, 19, and Figures 4-6. Applicant makes the election with traverse.
Applicant argues that the requirement for election of species is improper because there is no serious search burden. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that a modular furniture unit with a storage component positioned underneath a bed would not be obvious in view of a modular furniture unit with a storage component positioned adjacent a bed, and vice-versa. Additionally, a storage component positioned underneath a bed, could be classified in CPC A47C 19/22, while a storage component positioned adjacent a bed could be classified in CPC A47B 79/00. Furthermore, because of these patentably distinct variations in the structure and arrangement of the elements of each apparatus, the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter. A closet located beneath a bed is not in the same field of endeavor as a bedside set of shelves that is located adjacent to a bed; modifying one to be the other would require a significant redesign of components and would frustrate the purpose of each species, and would make each unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. For example, redesigning a bed with storage beneath, to have storage adjacent, would cause the apparatus to no longer have the functionality of a compact design that requires a minimum of floor space. Similarly, redesigning a bed with storage adjacent, to have storage beneath, would cause the apparatus to no longer have the functionality of a user being able to reach the storage from the bed (or alternatively the desktop from the bed in the case of Applicant’s Fig. 6). Therefore, these two species require a separate classification, or at the least a separate status in the art if they are classifiable together, and a different field of search. See MPEP § 808.02.
Claims 2-9, 16-17, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.
This application contains claims drawn to an invention nonelected with traverse (see above). When the application is otherwise in condition for allowance, a complete reply must include cancellation of nonelected claims, including non-elected claim language in claim 1 directed toward ”positioned underneath”, or other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144) See MPEP § 821.01.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2006/0162066 to Glattstein et al. (“Glattstein”).
Claim 1. A modular furniture frame unit (Glattstein, Fig. 40) comprising: a desk (Glattstein, Fig. 40, #332) element, a bed (Glattstein, Fig. 40, #320) support and a storage (Glattstein, Fig. 40, #331) component housing at least one pull-out wardrobe; the bed support configured to receive a bed mattress (Glattstein, Fig. 40, #321) thereon; the storage component of the frame unit positioned underneath (Species II has been elected, therefore reference to “positioned underneath” must be cancelled from the claim language) or adjacent to the bed support (Glattstein, Fig. 40, storage component #331 is adjacent to bed #320); and the desk element positioned underneath (Species II has been elected, therefore reference to “positioned underneath” must be cancelled from the claim language) or adjacent to the bed support (Glattstein, Fig. 40, desk element #332 is adjacent to bed #320).
Claim 10. The modular furniture frame unit of claim 1, wherein the bed support is positioned on top of a bed support base, the bed support base comprising: two substantially identical bed base side-panels (Glattstein, Fig. 39, #320 is seen to be comprised of two longitudinal portions located between end panels #311) parallel to each other and positioned perpendicular to and extending downward from the bed support at a respective bed support side, and two substantially identical bed base end-panels (Glattstein, Fig. 40, #311) parallel to each other and positioned perpendicular to and extending downward from the bed support at a respective bed support end.
Claim 11. The modular furniture frame unit of claim 10, wherein the storage component is positioned adjacent to the bed support and the bed support base (Glattstein, Fig. 40, storage component #331 is adjacent to bed support base #320 including side-panels and end-panels of the bed support base)
Claim 12. The modular furniture frame unit of claim 11, further comprising: a front storage component panel, a back storage component panel, a top storage component panel, a bottom storage component panel and a side storage component panel, the front, back, top, bottom and side storage component panels, collectively, defining the at least one pull-out wardrobe; the at least one pull-out wardrobe having an access side positioned parallel and opposite to the side storage component panel (see Glattstein Figs. 39-41, storage unit #331 is disclosed in paragraph [0114] to be “configured with drawers 337 or doors 338a and shelving 338b for storage, etc., as is known by a person with ordinary skill in the art”; moreover, the storage component comprises front and back panels, top and bottom panels, and a side panel which is located at the back side of the disclosed shelves or drawers).
Claim 13. The modular furniture frame unit of claim 12, wherein the desk element is defined by a desktop, a first side desk panel, a second side desk panel and a back desk panel, the desktop positioned on of top of the first side desk panel, the second side desk panel and the back desk panel (Glattstein discloses a desk #332 with sides and a back, as seen in Figs. 39-41).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2006/0162066 to Glattstein et al. (“Glattstein”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0009597 to Rivera-Alsina et al. (“Rivera-Alsina”)
Claim 18. A furniture assembly comprising two modular furniture frame units of claim 11, the two modular frame units mirror images of each other (Glattstein discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in above rejections, except for a second modular furniture frame unit, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second copy of the apparatus of Glattstein, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8; regarding a mirror image version of the apparatus, Rivera-Alsina discloses modular units in Fig 26A which are mirror images of each other; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second copy of the apparatus of Glattstein as a mirror image as necessary for a user’s particular room or space configuration).
Claim 19. The furniture assembly of claim 18 installed under a dropped ceiling (Glattstein does not disclose the use of a dropped ceiling, however Rivera-Alsina discloses the use of a dropped ceiling in at least the Abstract; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Glattstein with a dropped ceiling for the motivation provided by Rivera-Alsina, that being “permitting utility conduits to be routed over the lower portion of the ceiling”).
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Claims 14-15 are objected to as depending from a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 14, Applicant’s claim limitations directed toward the use of steps with the bed are not found in the prior art. It is noted that the prior art of Rivera-Alsina discloses the use of steps leading to a bed, seen at Fig. 4, #170. However it is further noted that Rivera-Alsina discloses an upper bed #120 for which the steps are utilized, and for which storage is positioned underneath. The upper bed of Rivera-Alsina is not equivalent to Applicant’s claim invention of a bed with a storage unit and desk positioned adjacent to the bed. There is no motivation to use steps with the lower bunk of Rivera-Alsina at least because the lower bed of Rivera-Alsina is accessible without steps. Independent claim 1 would be allowable if amended to remove language referencing non-elected Species I (“positioned underneath”) and amended to include the limitations of claims 10-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights